Disposed

Gerald Paul D Mello v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbi and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2007WP/166/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The Court granted the petitioner time to submit a regularization proposal and stayed execution of the notice pending the Corporation's decision and a 4-week cooling-off period to approach further authorities.

What did the court decide?

Application for regularization allowed; impugned notice stayed pending Corporation's decision and 4-week period to approach further authorities.

Gerald Paul D Mello Vs the Mumbai Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 166 OF 2007

¶5

 Gerald Paul D’Mello .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 The Mumbai Municipal Corporation
 of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.R.A.Thorat a/w Mr.E.A.Gonsalves for the
 petitioner

¶9

 Mrs.A.K.Savla for the respondents

¶10

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2007

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

 2. We propose to dispose of this petition at

¶15

 the stage of admission itself. The petitioner has
 approached this court impugning the notice issued
 to the petitioner under section 53(1) of the
 Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 for
 carrying out addition and alteration as specified
 in the notice without taking due permission from
 the Municipal Corporation.

¶16

¶17

 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the
 petitioner has only carried out necessary repairs
 of which permission was obtained, which prima facie
 did not appear to be so.

¶18

 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
 submits that if the addition and alteration does
 not violate the building regulations and bye laws
 and D.C. (Control) Rules, the petitioner can apply
 for regularisation of the addition and alteration
 which is the subject matter of the notice and
 therefore, the respondent Corporation should not
 act on the notice to enable the petitioner to apply
 for regularisation of the addition and alteration
 carried out by the petitioner.

¶19

 5. In our view, considering the nature of
 deviation in the repairs carried out by the
 petitioner and as specified in the impugned notice,
 an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to
 apply to the Municipal Corporation by submitting a
 proposal for regularisation of the addition and
 alteration carried out by the petitioner under the
 garb of the repair permission.

¶20

¶21

 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
 submits that he would forward a proposal alongwith
 a plan to the Municipal Corporation within a period
 of 2 weeks. On receipt of such proposal, the
 Municipal Corporation to take a decision in the
 matter within a period of 6 weeks. Till then, the
 Municipal Corporation would not act on the impugned
 notice.

¶22

 7. We make it clear that in case the Municipal
 Corporation does not approve the proposal for
 regularisation of the addition and alteration
 carried out by the petitioner, they will not act on
 the notice for a period of 4 weeks from the date of
 communication of the decision to enable the
 petitioner to approach appropriate authority. Till
 the respondent corporation takes a decision in the
 matter, the petitioner would not proceed with any
 further addition and alteration to the structure in
 question.

¶23

 8. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

¶25

 ( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J )

¶26

 ( SHRI S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J )

Gerald Paul D Mello v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gerald Paul D Mello v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New Era Alkoloids and Exports Ltd. Vs Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.

Chandrakant Hargovinddas Shah Vs Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister, Maharashtra State and 2 Ors.

The G. T. B. Hospital Doctors Union and 2 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Dindayal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Forward Market Commission and Anr.

M/S. Aatish Dani Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ritesh Narottamdas Dani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.